Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2023

Falcon Moran v. P.R. Crepe Ltd.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-04804
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Falcon Moran v. P.R. Crepe, Judge Oetken approved the $25,000 FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, including the parties’ settlement and any future disputes arising from it.

What happened

In Falcon Moran v. P.R. Crepe Ltd., the parties told the court they had settled the plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act claims and submitted the proposed agreement for approval.

The settlement provided $25,000 for the plaintiffs’ claims, with one-third allocated to attorney’s fees and costs. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Falcon Moran v. P.R. Crepe Ltd. · No. 1:22-cv-04804
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Sept. 8, 2023

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval. The agreement involved $25,000 to be allocated to the plaintiffs in connection with their Fair Labor Standards Act claims. One-third of the settlement amount was allocated to attorney’s fees and costs.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which governs court review of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements in this context.

Ruling

Judge J. Paul Oetken approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 43. The case was dismissed with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.